Jennifer McNeely1,2, Shiela M Strauss3, John Rotrosen4, Arianne Ramautar1, Marc N Gourevitch1,2. 1. Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 3. NYU College of Nursing, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To address barriers to implementing the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in medical settings, we adapted the traditional interviewer-administered (IA) ASSIST to an audio-guided computer assisted self-interview (ACASI) format. This study sought to validate the ACASI ASSIST by estimating the concordance, correlation and agreement of scores generated using the ACASI versus the reference standard IA ASSIST. Secondary aims were to assess feasibility and compare ASSIST self-report to drug testing results. DESIGN: Participants completed the ACASI and IA ASSIST in a randomly assigned order, followed by drug testing. SETTING: Urban safety-net primary care clinic in New York City, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 393 adult patients. MEASUREMENTS: Scores generated by the ACASI and IA ASSIST; drug testing results from saliva and hair samples. FINDINGS: Concordance between the ACASI and IA ASSIST in identifying moderate-high-risk use was 92-99% for each substance class. Correlation was excellent for global scores [intraclass correlation (ICC) = 0.937, confidence interval (CI) = 0.924-0.948] and for substance-specific scores for tobacco (ICC = 0.927, CI = 0.912-0.940), alcohol (ICC = 0.912, CI = 0.893-0.927) and illicit drugs (ICC = 0.854, CI = 0.854-0.900) and good for prescription drugs (ICC = 0.676, CI = 0.613-0.729). Ninety-four per cent of differences in global scores fell within anticipated limits of agreement. Among participants with a positive saliva test, 74% self-reported use on the ACASI ASSIST. The ACASI ASSIST required a median time of 3.7 minutes (range 0.7-15.4), and 21 (5.3%) participants requested assistance. CONCLUSIONS: The computer self-administered Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test appears to be a valid alternative to the interviewer-administered approach for identifying substance use in primary care patients.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To address barriers to implementing the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) in medical settings, we adapted the traditional interviewer-administered (IA) ASSIST to an audio-guided computer assisted self-interview (ACASI) format. This study sought to validate the ACASI ASSIST by estimating the concordance, correlation and agreement of scores generated using the ACASI versus the reference standard IA ASSIST. Secondary aims were to assess feasibility and compare ASSIST self-report to drug testing results. DESIGN:Participants completed the ACASI and IA ASSIST in a randomly assigned order, followed by drug testing. SETTING: Urban safety-net primary care clinic in New York City, USA. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 393 adult patients. MEASUREMENTS: Scores generated by the ACASI and IA ASSIST; drug testing results from saliva and hair samples. FINDINGS: Concordance between the ACASI and IA ASSIST in identifying moderate-high-risk use was 92-99% for each substance class. Correlation was excellent for global scores [intraclass correlation (ICC) = 0.937, confidence interval (CI) = 0.924-0.948] and for substance-specific scores for tobacco (ICC = 0.927, CI = 0.912-0.940), alcohol (ICC = 0.912, CI = 0.893-0.927) and illicit drugs (ICC = 0.854, CI = 0.854-0.900) and good for prescription drugs (ICC = 0.676, CI = 0.613-0.729). Ninety-four per cent of differences in global scores fell within anticipated limits of agreement. Among participants with a positive saliva test, 74% self-reported use on the ACASI ASSIST. The ACASI ASSIST required a median time of 3.7 minutes (range 0.7-15.4), and 21 (5.3%) participants requested assistance. CONCLUSIONS: The computer self-administered Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test appears to be a valid alternative to the interviewer-administered approach for identifying substance use in primary care patients.
Authors: Katharine A Bradley; Gwen T Lapham; Eric J Hawkins; Carol E Achtmeyer; Emily C Williams; Rachel M Thomas; Daniel R Kivlahan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer McNeely; Shiela M Strauss; Richard Saitz; Charles M Cleland; Joseph J Palamar; John Rotrosen; Marc N Gourevitch Journal: Am J Med Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Evelyn P Whitlock; Michael R Polen; Carla A Green; Tracy Orleans; Jonathan Klein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-04-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer McNeely; Shiela M Strauss; Shana Wright; John Rotrosen; Rubina Khan; Joshua D Lee; Marc N Gourevitch Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2014-02-10
Authors: R P Schwartz; J McNeely; L T Wu; G Sharma; A Wahle; C Cushing; C D Nordeck; A Sharma; K E O'Grady; J Gryczynski; S G Mitchell; R L Ali; J Marsden; G A Subramaniam Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2017-01-31
Authors: Sharon M Kelly; Kevin E O'Grady; Jan Gryczynski; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Arethusa Kirk; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Li-Tzy Wu; Jennifer McNeely; Geetha A Subramaniam; Gaurav Sharma; Paul VanVeldhuisen; Robert P Schwartz Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Pritika C Kumar; Charles M Cleland; Marc N Gourevitch; John Rotrosen; Shiela Strauss; Linnea Russell; Jennifer McNeely Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 4.492